TransitPolicyChanger
Active Member
Just wondering how would you ever be able to get that line above the 404 if it were converted? You mean rebuilding it entirely I assume and abandoning the existing station at Don Mills.
|
|
|
Just wondering how would you ever be able to get that line above the 404 if it were converted? You mean rebuilding it entirely I assume and abandoning the existing station at Don Mills.
The only way it would work would be, IMO, diverting off Sheppard southwards along the 404, and then crossing the 404 just north of the 401-404-DVP interchange. The line could then run through the Consumers area before rejoining Sheppard around Victoria Park. That's the only way that you can cover the vertical distance necessary to go from below ground to elevated to get over the 404.
TransitPolicyChanger
Active Member
But why bother? If there is an argument for conversion to permit extending the line - then tunneling under the 404 (considering where the tail tracks already are) makes the most sense. Where the line emerges and what form it takes from there can be debated (within this fantasy line thread, of course). That would be my disclaimer that neither option is likely.
jcam
Active Member
Original plan was to use the first 2 TBMs that finished Eglinton to then go under the 404 for Sheppard. As Eglinton design stalled, there was even a plan to do the 404 tunnel FIRST with the last 2 Eglinton TBMs (I remember seeing the drawings), THEN ship them down to do the eastern Eglinton tunnels. With Rob Ford calling into question the Sheppard LRT at the time, they scrapped the idea and instead just delayed manufacturing of the last 2 TBMs by well over a year. That's why they're only being assembled at the eastern portal now.
Last edited:
nfitz
Superstar
Why do you think that? Giambrone said we'd need the DRL, but wanted to delay construction to not start until about 2018. The studies were still trying to figure out if the Don Mills LRT/DRL transfer point should be at Danforth or Eglinton when the study was cancelled in 2011.
If Giambrone and Miller thought we needed a DRL subway, why do you suggest otherwise?
GenerationW
Senior Member
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
Interesting. I never knew they were investigating building the DRL up to Eglinton back then.
nfitz
Superstar
When Giambrone was chair in 2010 talking about the DRL study that was underway being completed by 2011. They hadn't finalized a terminus. http://torontoist.com/2010/06/rocket_talk_whats_the_plan_for_a_downtown_relief_line/
Recall that this was after Miller's council had asked the province to move the DRL from the 25-year timeframe to the 15-year timeframe in the Big Move. Which the province then did.
Also recall that the Don Mills Study area was all the way south to Lake Ontario and west to University. Ultimately this split into two studies, one for the LRT and one for the subway. However the Ford regime pulled the plug before there was any conclusion on where they meet.
44 North
Senior Member
It’s true they hadn’t finalized a southern terminus for the Don Mills LRT, or the alignment for a route. But I think it’s quite apparent the DMLRT was supposed to end at B/D. What wasn't known was where it was to intersect B/D (i.e - Castle Frank, Pape, or Donlands).
nfitz
Superstar
It was apparent in 2008. However as they started to turn their heads towards the DRL in 2010, it was clear from comments coming from folks with contacts in the project team, in the city, within TTC, and with councillors, is that there was some internal debate going on. Which if you recall we discussed in this forum in 2010 (and probably more recently, such as 2011). Given it all came to naught, who knows where they'd have landed.
GenerationW
Senior Member
It would have landed nowhere. Giambrone made it clear they wouldn't even consider the DRL until Transit City was finished, which could have meant 2018, years later, or never.
nfitz
Superstar
Then why did they start a DRL study, and why was Giambrone speaking about the study in 2010?
GenerationW
Senior Member
That was clearly a reaction to their incredible short-sightedness in agreeing to the Yonge EA. Otherwise they quite obviously wouldn't have bothered.
You could just as easily ask, if they saw it as a priority, why wasn't it included in Transit City? Surely any reasonable transit expert would have put the DRL ahead of the Scarborough-Malvern LRT. Yet the latter was included in the plan, with the former nowhere to be seen.
GenerationW is right. Their support of the DRL was largely because of the Yonge Extension progressing forward, and the impending capacity crunch that it would create.
nfitz
Superstar
Why would they include a DRL they finally admitted they had to start studying in 2010, in a 2008 LRT plan?
The answer of course, is that the cost of the DRL would more than exceed all 6 of the surface LRT plans in the Transit City plan. And that with Transit City mostly finished or under construction by 2016, they could then turn their head to a very expensive line, which wasn't going to be affordable quickly.